9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 830X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xcise and Customs officers. These are Catena of judgment of various judicial forum including reversionary authority wherein it has consistently been held that the substantial benefit to exporter should not be denied due to procedural/technical lapses especially when there is no dispute regarding the actual export of the duty paid goods, order-in-appeal set aside and order-in-original upheld, Revision Application succeed in above terms. - 195/345/2007-RA-CX - 376/2010-CX, - Dated:- 10-3-2010 - Shri D.P. Singh, J. S/Shri Nitin N. Mehta, Consultant and Rajesh Mehta, for the Assessee. [Order]. This revision applications has been filed by M/s. Nilkamal Ltd., Pondicherry against the order-in-appeal no. 17/2007(P)(D), dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... did not follow any procedure to be followed by an exporter; (b) The identity of crates cleared by the respondent to M/s Ace Glass Containers Ltd. and the crates exported by Pepsico do not match as per records with any identifiable marks and numbers relating to the crates mentioned in the clearance documents prepared by the respondent and M/s. Ace Glass Containers Ltd. and the export documents prepared by Pepsico; (c) None of the three parties involved followed any statutorily prescribed procedure and only took shelter under the Department s permission letter dated 17-7-2002 which itself has no legal sanction. 2.3 The Commissioner (Appeals) sets aside the order-in-original on the ground that the applicant has not followed the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remises of AGCL cannot be made basis to consider that the clearances were not for export. 3.2 It is submitted that on the contrary to the findings in the impugned Order-In-Original, the Show Cause Notice categorically admitted that the plastic crates received by AGCL from the Applicants were used for placing Glass Bottles in the crates and which were exported under physical supervision of the jurisdictional Central Excise officers, having jurisdiction over the factory of both the Applicants as well as AGCL. As a matter of fact the removal and transportation of the goods from the Applicants factory and its export from the factory was carried out under the physical supervision of the jurisdictional Central Excise officers, in compliance to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. 3.4 It is respectfully submitted that what the Asstt. Commissioner had prescribed in the said permission letter is the procedure to be followed for consolidation and loading of export cargoes, which is not prohibited under the law. As a matter of fact the Show Cause Notice itself categorically admitted that such procedure, as per the supplementary instructions to the Central Excise Manual, issued by CBEC, is permissible if both the factories belonged to the same manufacturer. This clearly goes to show that under the law, following of the procedure, as prescribed by the Asstt. Commissioner in his permission letter is permissible and is perfectly within the framework of law. It is submitted that if the procedure can be followed in case i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Notice that the Applicants had not followed and observed the said procedures. 3.6 It is respectfully submitted that in substance the whole premise for filing of the Departments appeal and the impugned Order-in-Appeal, revolves around the theme that the Applicants had, instead of clearing the goods directly from their factor, had removed the same to the factory premises of Ace Glass Containers Ltd. for the purpose of consolidation and loading of export cargoes. It is submitted that it is a settled legal position that in such type of circumstances also the fact of export is proved and the same cannot be disputed. In this regard, the Applicants refer to and rely upon the following decisions on the subject : C.C.E. v. U.I.C Wires Ltd., 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al hearing on 26-10-2009, Shri Nitin N. Mehta, consultant and Sh. Rajesh Mehta appeared on behalf of the applicant and reiterated the grounds of Revision Application. 5. Government has considered both oral and written submissions of the applicants the relevant case record and also perused the order passed by the lower authorities. 6. From the perusal of records. Government observes that there is no dispute on the export of the goods. The original adjudicating officer has given categorical finding that the said goods have been exported under the supervision of the Central excise officer after stuffing them in the Container loading the Containers as per the condition of the permission letter dated 17-7-2002 of the jurisdictional Assista ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
